Meet Hanan Dover

Check out Hanan Dover, who made lots of comments on that ‘Muslim Village’ discussion of Habib. She’s not rabid enough for some of the commenters there, but she’s rabid enough for (I hope) most people.

So, what do Islamic Scriptures say about homosexuality…just from these verses we can deduce that Islam forbids any sexual relationship other than between man and woman, and even then, it must be within a marriage. In a hadith, Abu Hurairah (ra) reported Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said: ‘Four types of people awake under Allah’s anger and go to bed under Allah’s displeasure.’ Those who were listening asked: Who are they, Messenger of Allah?’ He replied: ‘Men who imitate women, women who imitate men, those who have sex with animals, and men who have sex with men.’

And so on and so on and so on, complete with all the (ra)s and (pbuh)s and the rest of the robotic bullshit.

There is no changing the Quran. The Quran is a perfect guide for humanity. Human law nor science is above Allah (swt)…And this brings into light the difference between what homosexuality means in Islam and what homosexuality means is in the modern world…There is Wisdom in Allah’s rulings and they do not change and He only gives us these restrictions for the benefit of humanity. So, it should be crystal clear even literally clear that Islam forbids homosexual behaviour…Can you be a Muslim thief, or a Muslim paedophile, or a Muslim rapist? No, as you cannot attach what is inherently sinful in Islam to the religious identity as it goes against what a Muslim is. You can call yourself a Muslim psychologist, a Muslim doctor or a Muslim teacher as these can all co-exist as long as they adhere to Islamic principles, but homosexuality does not.

Dover is a Muslim psychologist. Something tells me she’s not a very good psychologist – and as Bronwyn Winter pointed out, she was suspended ‘from her post as a lecturer in psychology at UWS because of her homophobic views and practices (she has also expressed anti-Semitic and anti-feminist views). Suspension is an extreme measure, only possible when evidence has been found to support allegations of serious misconduct, such as misuse of university funds or serious breach of the University Code of Conduct.’

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, UWS does about Habib’s course. Insh’allah they’ll tell the imams and the imams’ supporters to go away.

45 Responses to “Meet Hanan Dover”

I may perhaps get a name as an Islamophobe. Martin Amis have at least this much in common, perhaps. However, the operative phrase in all of these ‘Notes and Comments’ which refer to the perils of Islam and the modern world is this:

‘There is no changing the Quran. The Quran is a perfect guide for humanity. Human law nor science is above Allah (swt)…”

I have no idea what ‘swt’ means, but the rest is clear enough, and disturbing enough. When people ask the question (as someone recently did): How come Hindus and Sikhs can live with secular democracy and Muslims can’t? Well, here is the answer: because Muslims have all the right answers.

I am troubled by things like the BNP or the Dutch Freedom Party. However, it does seem to me that, until there is some clear way of reconciling Islam with secular democracy, and until this is seen to be so, increased immigration of Muslims constitutes a danger to the state.

Subhanahu wa ta’ala (Arabic: سبحانه و تعالى‎) is an Islamic Arabic phrase meaning, “glorious and exalted is He (Allah).” The phrase (often abbreviated to “swt”) appears after the name of Allah in Islamic texts such as the Qur’an and the Hadith. Saying this phrase is seen as an act of reverence and devotion towards Allah among Muslims.

The more “islamophobic” we become the better. Our goal must be for Islam to be practised as a personal religion. Of course, Islamisists are allowed to bring their religion into the public domain, but then we must see it for what it is: a totalitarian political ideology.

Honestly, I’m really worried for the future of the West. I was at Speaker’s Corner earlier today, and one of the Muslim speakers was quite right – they are prepared to die for jihad, we are not (yet, I hope) ready to defend our own values.

“Islamisists are allowed to bring their religion into the public domain”

Well, that depends what is meant. In secular states they are not allowed to do that in the sense of, for instance, making religious laws. They can’t use the inane empty ‘reasons’ that Hanan Dover uses for outlawing homosexuality, for example – they have to use something more than saying ‘the Koran says so’ or ‘Allah (swt) says so.’ If all they have is ‘the Koran says so’ or ‘the Bible says so’ then they can’t make legislation for a secular state – at least they shouldn’t be able to.

People should be entitled to propose laws based on anything they think is appropriate. If someone wants to have a ban on abortion because the Pope says so, then they should certainly not be censored in the public realm because their political opinion is based on a religious idea.

Rather, the political value of the idea should be discussed, and its religious basis simply ignored. I’m not a Catholic, so I couldn’t give two hoots what the Pope says or doesn’t say, so I’m free to ignore the Catholic person’s opinion. This is true for everyone who is not a Catholic (and also a not-inconsiderable number of Catholics), so just saying “the Pope says” is a good way to have your views ignored.

Therefore, people of good will who are religious (and there are one or two of them) will learn that if they want to be taken seriously in the public realm, then they need to make their policy suggestions in terms that are understandable/acceptable to people outside their own religious framework.

This has actually happened in the abortion debate. You hardly ever see anti-abortionists saying that it’s wrong to kill “babies” because those “babies” have a soul or something. They now phrase their arguments in terms of the human right to life of the feotus. And this is all to the good, because they have now entered a realm where our shared values function, and we will be able to debate them on those terms.

Beautiful plan, Nick. The problem being obviously that it won’t work because a) the religious are becoming expert at playing the identity game and b) while on the one hand they want to impose religion-based policies, they, on the other hand, insist that the bases for these cannot be challenged, calling it intolerance, islamophobia, war on christmas, militant atheism or what have you.

The recent speech by Blair at Westminster was a perfect example of this “having your cake and eating it” attitude.

“Rather, the political value of the idea should be discussed, and its religious basis simply ignored.”

But that’s what I’m saying. That’s why I said ‘that depends what is meant’ and specified a particular sense. That’s why I said they can’t use empty reasons and they have to use something more than ‘the Bible/Koran says so.’ You’re agreeing with me, not disagreeing.

“You hardly ever see anti-abortionists saying that it’s wrong to kill “babies” because those “babies” have a soul or something.”

Oh yes you damn well do – when bishops and popes and ‘devout Catholic MPs’ oppose abortions they do indeed say things like that. They say all life is sacred, for instance – Bishop Gene Robinson (not an MP) said that just the other day and I commented on it here. He doesn’t even mean that, but he says it anyway, and so do lots of people who are in fact legislators.

“They now phrase their arguments in terms of the human right to life of the feotus.”

But that is a view that is heavily contaminated by religion. Non-religious people are much less likely to find that convincing. Non-religious people have a hard time believing that, for instance, a few cells in a petri dish have rights in the same way they themselves have rights. Some manage it, but it’s much less common than it is among religious people.

@Arnaud – yes you’re right, but we won’t win our argument by censoring the public political opinions of people who have religious views. If someone’s religion is practised in the home or church, (so long as it doesn’t harm anyone) we can’t really have a problem with it, no matter how odious that practise is, especially if those involved are all adults (it’s much more problematical when there are children involved).

So what’s the solution? We need to argue against the identity politics argument – religion does not equal race, and criticising a religion is perfectly acceptable *especially* when that religion is brought out into the public domain in support of a political ideal.

Furthermore, we need to take pride in the things they call us! I regualrly call myself a Kafir (in the hearing of Muslims) and I happily accept the label of being “Islamophobic”. We need to urgently delegitimate the use of that language, and the best way to do that is to embrace (and thereby smother) it.

@Ophelia – I was focussing on your sentance “In secular states they are not allowed to do that in the sense of, for instance, making religious laws.” I really don’t like the use of the words “not allowed”, which to my mind implied censorship of their views, “Oh, you’re proposing a law against murder because it’s in the Ten Commandments, well, we shan’t have any time for you today”. So I’m glad you’ve clarified that you don’t want to exclude religious people from the conversation, because of their religiousness.

“”They now phrase their arguments in terms of the human right to life of the feotus.”

But that is a view that is heavily contaminated by religion.”

I agree, but we are now talking on ground which is secular – does the foetus have human rights or not? And we can use arguments like “it has no interests”, “it has no nervous system”, “it has no rights to continue to draw on the Mother’s bodily resources” and so on.

It is much easier to argue on these grounds than on the grounds of “My magic book/priest/sky pixie tells me in dreams that abortion is wrong”.

Of course there are many people who still argue in the old way, and to them we must just say, “that’s nice, you’re allowed to think that, but as it’s based on beliefs the rest of society doesn’t share, we’re happy to carry on as before.”

Well, Nick, I said (just as you point out) ‘in the sense of, for instance, making religious laws.’ That shouldn’t really need clarification; it already is clear that I’m not advocating ‘exclud[ing] religious people from the conversation, because of their religiousness.’ I chose my words carefully, you chose to read something extra into them. For future reference: I choose my words carefully, and if you read them carefully, you’ll avoid disagreeing with something I didn’t say and didn’t mean to say.

By the way, in your reply to Arnaud you mix up public political opinions and practice at home and in church, in the space of one sentence. Public political opinions are one thing, practice at home and in church is another, legislation is a third. It’s better to keep things separate.

Hanan Dover would probably approve – islamic law treats women as legal minors and that’s that really. Without ditching the hadiths – without which one cannot really make sense of the quran- a practising muslim has to accept the second class status of women. The sistas in hijabs who claim to be ‘islamic feminists’ know there is no way round this.

The m’sian blogs are spluttering with outrage at this latest nonsense from their govt and I really doubt this proposal will go through. It’s sympomatic though of the thinking of msian muslim males. What about the muslim cleric who last year suggested that women wear chastity belts to deter rape and incest??!!? Yeah, mindboggling stupid and people at the other end of the world are sniggering but these men with the asinine suggestions are the ministers and religious leaders of a moderately well developed nation, not some inbred mullah in an afghani or somali village.

About the islamophobe label, I have embraced it too. It was not easy though, I really resisted it when first baited with it at pickled politics and got terribly angry and saddened at the same time.It implies a hatred of all muslim people and i mistakenly thought accepting it would cast a taint on the lifelong friendships I have with a good number of muslims.(when I raised SE Asian issues, one particular person called me a communalist as if i had a hardline hindu agenda though he knew I was an out and out atheist and secularist!)

I finally decided that Islam as a political doctrine has to be firmly resisted – I do not want to live in the shadow of a theocracy. The danger is real and palpable in SE asia. Thousands have died in South Thailand and the southern Philippines, minority and women’s rights have been increasingly under threat in the muslim majority states of Indonesia and M’sia.This is a region where muslim mobs gather and burn out the ‘heretics’ as happened with the teapot cult in Msia and the recently, the ahmadiya mosque in west Java. Yeah, it is a fundamentalist ‘minority’ but when that minority gets away with intimidation, arson, deaththreats and incitement to murder, you’d better start paying attention to what is going on.

I completely agree with the sentiment of your last post. Particularly regarding the regression of women’s rights in regions of M’sia (Kelantan)and Indonesia. Though, in the case of Indonesia, the post-Soeharto political scene holds as much hope for human rights as can be wished…I guess.

The main issue I have though, is the label Islamaphobe – if you are against Islam as a political doctrine, isn’t your secular, athiest belief enough?

One thing have have definitely noticed is that in many areas of SEA, the mosques and islamic groups have become far more vocal and politicised. Here’s a question for you: Have you noticed the same phenomena and is it just me but did it start ramping up post 9/11?

If Islam is a peaceful religion – and if says it promotes ‘peace’ – should not then ‘peace’ with it take precedence over diabolical violent acts – (like that of the heinous crime of stoning to death of women) that occurs on a daily basis – under the banner of this so called ‘peaceful’ religion.

Marie, The drug smuggling accurate is accurate. The problem is collective punishment.

Islam as a religion of peace. Wasn’t the origin of this phrase a GWB speech?

The claim that any religion is peaceful (ok, maybe Quakers) is a fallacy. But to ascribe certain human behaviour solely to a religion is also fallacious. Indonesia does not stone women to death, nor does Malaysia. They don’t practice female cirumcision.

Many nasty things are done under the banner of religion. All the executions in the USA have a christian ahem, philosophy cough cough supporting them. G. Tingey, who made that claim? are you a x-tianphobe, also?

DFG. I don’t know about G. Tingey, but I’m a Christianophobe too. Christianity is a very dangerous force in the world, and is causing untold suffering in Africa, for instance, and in other parts of the world, where idiotic teaching about birth control (in which a lot of Muslims are involved too, I’m afraid) has been the immediate cause of death and suffering. When Christianity held onto the reins of civil power, it was extremely dangerous, and many people died in the effort to free themselves from the burden of religious authority. The force in the world that is most dangerous today, I’m afraid, and I don’t think its a caricature to say so, is Islam.

The real problem is that while Christianity still has the potential to be far more powerful and dangerous than it now is, Islam has enormous power to do harm right now, and, in fact, many Muslims, whatever their cultural practices, such as FGM, or stoning, support (and often demand, as in the case of the ANIC) forms of religious oppression, especially of women, and restriction of free enquiry, that threaten freedoms in many democratic countries (not all of them Western – Turkey is, for example, in danger of walking down this precipitous road). And, while there are indeed a number of Muslims who live quietly with their neighbours, and find it possible to express their faith in the context of liberal democratic societies, the voice that sounds most loudly, I’m afraid, is the voice of groups like the Australian National Imams Council or the MCB. The public Muslim voice in opposition to this kind of ‘speech of oppression’ is pitifully weak.

The real problem is that, without sounding Islamophobic, it is impossible for non-Muslims to oppose what seems to them a great danger to their freedom. They run up against people like you who say that there are lots of Muslims who are quite comfortable with secular forms of government. Maybe there are, but if we cannot oppose Muslim extremism without offending people like you, then the battle is already lost, and we allow the extremists free rein in the name of multiculturalism. I am not willing to hide my feelings of alarm at the growing demands of Muslims for respect, demands which are now creating equally strident Christian voices for the same kind of respectful submission to religious authority. This is not the kind of society that I wish to live in, where we are restricted on every side by religious claims to tolerance, a tolerance which too many religious voices are not prepared to grant in return.

I must clarify that I am an islamaphobe (horrible label!) only to the extent that I resist religious law and sensibilities encroaching into public space and Islam presents the greatest threat of that now. Like I said, I do not like the label and it is accurate only to the extent that I loathe some aspects of Islamic doctrine. But I accept it to preempt the inevitable sneer from certain quarters.Atheist, secularist credentials are increasing seen as a liability by certain folk of the milnesian, buntingesque persuasion. Rather than being forced to justify my love of muslims (some of them really are my best friends!)or to cringe and run away ( as I was wont to), it is easier to say, yeah, so what?

On a personal, individual level, I find muslims far less offensive than christians of a certain ilk and I have had so much animus towards hinduism and denigrated my hindu relatives so badly, that I feel quite ashamed of my histrionics now.

I noticed the increased religiosity way before 9/11. the spread of the tudung – islamic veil- in the 80’s was one indication. As was the denigration of traditional artforms(pre-islamic influence, therefore haram), dress, even forms of greetings (especially in malaysia). On a personal level, I had a pakistani friend – well educated, middleclass, liberal,open and kindhearted- who did some volunteer work for the muslim converts association and overnight got turned into a headscarfed stranger. She used to send me emails praising the taliban in Afghanistan, all through 2000 and 2001, extolling their ‘true’respect for women (as opposed to the evil west’s objectification). My boyfriend and I tried to get through to her but she refused to be drawn into a debate and we had to write her off. That was a few months before 9/11.

The day after 9/11, 3 of my muslim students nearly gave me a heart attack when they asked me whose ‘side’ I was on. Er, let me see suicide bombers or possibly tens of thousands of innocents dead? Even as I said that out aloud, they were disappointed. Oh she is for the Americans! I told you!

I checked with the parents to find out what was going on. Surprisingly, it was not the parents or the ustaz, their personal religious tutor, who was feeding the kids this kind of talk but their malay language teacher. Parents did not want to challenge the teacher. It seemed to me that a few muslims had decided to draw up the civilisational walls. I saw it as a defensive gesture, cognitive dissonance and all that. I am truly sorry for it but that is one of the worst ways of dealing with the problem. Why even identify yourself with it? My hindu siblings do not identify with the butchers of Gujarat and therefore haven’t a problem condemning them.

All I can do is challenge the kids when they come out with the anti-semitic(esp nasty considering that practically no jews live here) or anti-western rhetoric. They need to understand that their religion, their health, their lifestyle, their knowledge etc is impossible without jews or westerners.

The late suharto and immediate post suharto years ( when that weird short guy was president) were the years that the islamists got their shot in the arm through govt patronage. Now islamists are part of the indonesian political landscape and i don’t include the NU or the Muhamaddiya movement as islamists, mind you.

Check out this site, esp the FPI incitement video and count the number of times the speakers ask their audience to ‘bunuh’, murder : http://www.indonesiamatters.com/

The Malaysian govt tried to outdo the islamist PAS under Mahathir- a bigot of the worst kind -and is responsible for what is going on in Malaysia now. Islamists were co-opted into the mainstream for political convenience as a deliberate strategy and people’s attitudes have hardened as result, rather than because of 9/11. Indonesia has a better and longer liberal muslim tradition and less interest in arabising than Msia (due to amore secure javanese identity, imo).

oh, there is female circumcision in Indonesia and Msia – a small snip of the clit- came here with Islam and is spreading in indonesia as the more hardline imams advocate it. Not talked about at all and I only discovered it when one of my students’ ustaz told me a few years ago that she was circumcised. there is stuff on the net if you’re inclined to google.

“Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others.”

“The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur’an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.”

“I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.”

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.” Rearden Metal 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for FGM, I would propose that this is mainly confined to the fringes of nutbaggery-islam in Indo and M’sia.

Regardless, the point of my posting has been to point out that Islam is not a monolith. The practices are not common across all branches. And in places such as Indonesia (I stand corrected by and in agreement with Mirax, M’sia is far more influenced by the M’East) to even compare Javanese Islam to that in Aceh is laughable (not to even get into comparisons with Saudi…)

Mirax’s point re: UMNO co-opting the policies of PAS is another demonstration of this. I see the like of Mahathir as slimy political opportunists, who, in their desire to consolidate power are giving support and succour to the worst of the fundamentalist forces.

The political wind is blowing in the direction of radical/funda/whatever label Islam. The question is: What circumstances brought this about?

By the way, as I understand it, calling Islam teh religion of ‘peace’ is momething the Muslims themselves do. ‘Islam’ cames from a root word that means ‘resignation, absence of conflict’, so it literally means ‘peace’. But as I like to say, it’s the peace and quiet of the grave. Looking at the real world, one notices that it is more truely the religion of conflict. Only yesterday the Shia in Lebanon started a civil war to take over the state. Can you imagine what the world would be like if Islam became the predominant ideology? Frightening.

You know what? Hanan is one of THE. BEST. tutors i’ve had. EVER. What makes you think you have the right to sit there and defame her via the internet? Your claims are incorrect and unless you’ve ever been one of her patients where the hell do you get off thinking it’s ok to call her a bad psychologist. Get over yourself and get a life rather then sitting and wasting your time defaming others over the internet. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh… and as for your comments about her being a homophobic. I’ve spent the past 14 weeks with Hanan… she is all about giving everyone a fair chance and respecting others even if their views are different from your own. So get with the program and properlly research your sources.

Gosh, no, Anonymous, I didn’t know Dover is one of the best tutors you’ve ever had. How would I? You’re anonymous!

Now, I did point out that I was speculating that she’s not a very good psychologist. That was an inference from what she said herself in the passage I quoted. I don’t think I’m defaming her by making that inference. I’m certainly not defaming her by quoting her – she said what she said!

She is not afraid to go there and touch the heart of the gruesomeness of her subject matter. Whether the wrongdoing occurs in Ireland, England, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, America, Bangladesh, and Malaysia – etc.

Others pay lip service only and wonder what people may think of ‘them’ afterwards if they speak out about serious issues pertaining to abuse of all descriptions within religion. OB does not indeed. She is her own person.

She challenges people’s points – not people.

People are not prepared to walk the long dusty road and get their eyes all smoggy with the dusty debris… of the world while pointing out to it – its wrongdoing. That is what separates OB from the rest. She is unique in this fashion. It is such a pity that there are not more like her out there in the blogosphere cyber-world.

All I do is write stuff. It’s people like MSF who really go out and touch the heart of the gruesomeness. The people hovering on the borders of Burma hoping to be allowed to help. The people who monitor elections in Zimbabwe. Reporters in danger zones.

Not quite sure how one would go about proving this but I do believe that ms Dover is a fraud who may never have actually graduated high school let alone from university. I also have heard that Dover is not her real name rather it was something created to claim social security in two different names. As I said this may not be easy to prove and may be untrue but regardless this is why I believe university of western sydney has not educational merit!